“`html 
The US government shutdown, now extending into its third week, is a serious issue. National employees are not receiving their salaries, and vital civic amenities are not available. Regardless, within media reporting and on Capitol Hill, it hasn’t precisely seemed like a critical situation. Matt Glassman, a senior researcher at Georgetown who analyzes Congress, and creator of the Five Points publication, has previously documented this phenomenon; I consulted with him for Vox’s daily digest, Today, Explained, regarding the factors rendering this shutdown so atypical and our insights into its potential resolution.
Our dialogue, condensed for conciseness and readability, can be found below, and you can subscribe to the bulletin here for similar exchanges.
You have recently characterized this as “the most unusual shutdown I’ve witnessed.” What makes it so peculiar?
The consequences seem incredibly important, yet also considerably insignificant. The fundamental reason for the standstill, to some extent, is the fear among Democrats that a compromise will be reached, only for the president to nullify it. Evidently, this is not a particularly captivating matter for constituents, and there is no clear policy demand resonating with the public, thus, the Democrats have effectively steered the conversation toward health care.
Health care represents their strongest suit, making it understandable that they would prefer to concentrate on it, yet it also feels like a minor matter, given that, uniquely, we are experiencing a shutdown where the objective is achievable. Past shutdowns involved unattainable goals — Obama was not going to endorse a measure rescinding Obamacare, and the Democrats would not have consented to erecting the border partition.
Today, Explained
Gain insights into the world through a daily explanation, complemented by the day’s most gripping narratives.
Email (required)Sign UpBy submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Here, we are faced with a shutdown concerning a realizable aim that does not present itself as extremely critical politically. Nevertheless, underlying it is this fundamental issue pertaining to budgetary control that seems unlikely to find resolution.
Another aspect is that the partisan arrangement of the standstill does not particularly galvanize individuals. Democrats tend to advocate for the value of governance, and [that] the majority of government initiatives, overall, benefit and support the citizenry, so I am uncertain if they are truly committed to shutting down the government. Similarly, Republicans, who harbor deep skepticism regarding the capacity of government to resolve issues and achieve objectives, lack substantial motivation to emerge as ardent proponents of keeping the government operational.
The confluence of these factors, along with the inability to capture significant media coverage regarding the shutdown, seems to be giving it a low-profile feel. Significant media attention is being directed toward the Middle East or Ukraine, or tariffs, or ICE and CBP operations in Portland and Chicago. The shutdown appears to be a distant third in importance.
So, is the Democrats’ tactic effective for them?
That hinges on your definition of “effective.” Do I anticipate Republicans conceding to hold a vote on health care before reopening the government? No, I do not believe so. This aligns with previous shutdowns: Those engaging in hostage situations do not secure their demands until they consent to resume government functions.
The ultimate outcome here, from a policy perspective, is fairly straightforward. The Democrats will eventually consent to reopen the government unconditionally, while simultaneously, the Republicans will extend a sincere, verbal agreement to allow a vote on extending Obamacare subsidies.
Now, this is only one viewpoint. Another perspective involves public sentiment regarding blame attribution. In that respect, I believe the Democrats are faring better. One aspect is the peculiar nature of the Democrats’ approach: They are attempting to suggest that they did not precipitate the shutdown, which is exceptional. The majority of those triggering [a] shutdown are asserting, “We’re doing this for a crucial cause.” Regardless, there is substantial proof that voters are placing blame on the Republicans to an equal or greater extent than the Democrats.
The third consideration is the political implications. Public sentiment regarding shutdowns typically does not translate into immediate shifts in voter intentions during elections, yet it can shape immediate political dynamics. I am uncertain whether the Democrats or Republicans are prevailing in this immediate political struggle, but I sense that Congress is faring poorly. The Trump regime has delivered on its pledges to exploit the shutdown as justification for asserting various forms of executive overreach.
We observed a fresh development on Wednesday with Trump unilaterally allocating funds to compensate the troops. He has been employing tariff proceeds to sustain a nutrition initiative for mothers and young children, at least temporarily. How tenable is this type of measure? Will this impede Democrats from reaching a compromise?
This is only exacerbating the situation, correct? It’s prolonging the fundamental rationale for the shutdown, namely that the current president poses a significant threat to budgetary authority. Concurrently, it is alleviating the focal points that would sway public opinion, such as ensuring troop compensation and related issues. I am uncertain where this will culminate, because the Trump administration is currently engaging in actions that, to my perception, constitute clear infractions of either the Antideficiency Act or the Constitution, and nobody is going to confront them on the matter of troop remuneration or WIC funding or anything comparable, because who genuinely wants to initiate that legal action?
However, I believe it is consistently crucial to situate this within the framework of preceding presidents, because Trump did not conceive of executive overreach. Throughout the 21st century, as a result of partisanship, presidents feel increasingly secure in pursuing these assertions of executive budgetary authority, knowing that their party is less inclined to abandon them. If any president had attempted any of this impropriety in the ’70s or ’80s, they would have encountered vociferous opposition from within their own party. Yet, we have witnessed presidents becoming more audacious in this regard.
We are now in the third week of the shutdown. Another CR (continuing resolution) vote failed today. The Senate is preparing to adjourn for the weekend. Do you possess any sense of the timeline for concluding the shutdown?
Attempting to offer precise predictions is unwise, yet we can discern potential inflection points on the horizon. One such point would be a subsequent military paycheck. We will have federal civilian personnel missing a further paycheck. We may witness increased dissatisfaction among air traffic controllers and TSA employees, prompting more sick-outs, which could strain the airport network. Furthermore, the notifications being dispatched regarding healthcare subsidies on November 1 appear to represent a critical moment. I would surmise that, toward the end of October, all of these factors will converge to produce another substantial pressure point.
The essential point to recall here is that, ultimately, I believe the Republicans are inclined to endorse the extension of these subsidies, at least to safeguard their vulnerable moderate representatives who are urgently seeking a resolution. The peculiar aspect is that, from a purely cynical political vantage, the Democrats would arguably prefer that these subsidies not be extended. However, from a policy-based standpoint, this is an entirely attainable agreement.
I find it difficult to believe that this will persist much beyond November 1, yet, at this juncture, positions have solidified, and the administration is undertaking sufficient measures to mitigate the discomfort, so who can say with certainty.
“`
Source: vox.com
